Injuries - 9-Year Analysis

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by BobSacamano69:
Holy S 2nd most ACL tears in the last 10 seasons

what further proof do the deniers need

What does it prove besides they've had the 2nd most ACL tears in the last 10 years?

And what are people denying exactly?

With the 49ers an injuries

when it rains, it f**king pours

All the rules changes and equipment improvements haven't made a big difference in injuries. Serious head trauma may be down but knee, ankle and shoulder injuries still happen a lot. Live with it and build enough depth to survive the injuries. that's all you can do.

Originally posted by Luckycharms:

Originally posted by DRCHOWDER:

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Sad thing is that chart is wrong. We actually lead the nfl with 28 since 2013 and Denver is 2nd with 24.

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:

Here is the list of every torn ACL documented in the NFL by team since 2013 👇 pic.twitter.com/AXem1d9sqb

— ACL Recovery Club (@ACLrecoveryCLUB) February 21, 2023

We also lead the league since 2017 in games missed to injury/illness. 1485 games missed since then. Just crazy

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
Yet they still made it to the NFC conference title game twice in the last 4 years and on SB. Probably would have made it this year if it wasn't for Purdy's injury.

This just reiterates the fact that we do have the best roster in the league and if Kyle Shanahan had less injuries we would have an extra 2-3 Super Bowls right now, no questions. If he had a top 10 quarterback instead of a top 15 quarterback we would also have 2-3 more Super Bowls.

I see that the correlation vs. causation fallacy is alive and kickin' with most of the reactionaries in this thread.


I mean why think, right?

hmmm interesting

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by pasodoc9er:
Normally when one sees a list like this , the first thing that comes to mind is it is OUR FIELD…however, as we all know, ACLs have happened at a good many fields and one in NY that is famously bad. We seem to be able to screw up knees or ankles, whatever , no matter which field we play on. If all those injuries were from home field that is one thing….but home field just isn't it. Anywhere and everywhere are the answers.

Going back to the previous year's ACL injuries,....2019,.... Julian Taylor -- Took him in the 7th Rd., right?

Yet another that slid in the draft due to multiple injuries. We chose his TALENT over HEALTH issues. It's what we do.

2018,...1 was Jimmy and we knew of his injury stuff back with the Patriots.

So are we still clued out with this chicken or the egg thing as to "why us?"

Well there are guys picked with injuries and then there are guys picked HIGH with injuries. 7th rd pick? Worth every penny betting on the come. But 1st rd, #14, with tendinitis (that was okay) but arthritis? unhh…no, that was not okay. Kin is one heck of a player, but he's got bad knees…period. If the arthritis was known about initially and we took him at #14, then that was a poor decision. Why? Because arthritis doesn't get better , it just get worse….with use…and especially with traumatic use.

So basically this is a context question…if we are drafting high, those boys better be healthy. But i have no qualms about taking a. 7th rd pick with health issues unless they are horrible. If questionable, sure, that's what rd 7 is for…talented guys who are dinged up. No complaints from me. With Kin, i just don't know what was known about his arthritis prior to being drafted. But if we knew…then that would rate a mistake… IMO. Rd 6 or 7, sure, give him a spin. Ergo, context matters.

New, complete data for 2022 is in and the original post updated. Very surprising. I legit thought this was our healthiest year by far esp. compared to all teams. I figured no worse than 16th which would be a massive improvement for us. Nope. I guess we're just numb to this:

Historical AGL Ranks: Lower = Healthiest
2008 - 6th
2009 - 23rd
2010 - 4th
2011 - 8th (NFCCG)
2012 - 1st (Superbowl)
2013 - 23rd (NFCCG)
2014 - 26th
2015 - 26th
2016 - 24th
2017 - 23rd
2018 - 29th
2019 - 27th (Superbowl)
2020 - 32nd
2021 - 29th (NFCCG)
2022 - 24th (NFCCG)

Originally posted by NCommand:
New, complete data for 2022 is in and the original post updated. Very surprising. I legit thought this was our healthiest year by far esp. compared to all teams. I figured no worse than 16th which would be a massive improvement for us. Nope. I guess we're just numb to this:

Historical AGL Ranks: Lower = Healthiest
2008 - 6th
2009 - 23rd
2010 - 4th
2011 - 8th (NFCCG)
2012 - 1st (Superbowl)
2013 - 23rd (NFCCG)
2014 - 26th
2015 - 26th
2016 - 24th
2017 - 23rd
2018 - 29th
2019 - 27th (Superbowl)
2020 - 32nd
2021 - 29th (NFCCG)
2022 - 24th (NFCCG)

Garbage

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by NCommand:
New, complete data for 2022 is in and the original post updated. Very surprising. I legit thought this was our healthiest year by far esp. compared to all teams. I figured no worse than 16th which would be a massive improvement for us. Nope. I guess we're just numb to this:

Historical AGL Ranks: Lower = Healthiest
2008 - 6th
2009 - 23rd
2010 - 4th
2011 - 8th (NFCCG)
2012 - 1st (Superbowl)
2013 - 23rd (NFCCG)
2014 - 26th
2015 - 26th
2016 - 24th
2017 - 23rd
2018 - 29th
2019 - 27th (Superbowl)
2020 - 32nd
2021 - 29th (NFCCG)
2022 - 24th (NFCCG)

Garbage

Oh, cogently argued. Very convincing.

Originally posted by English:
Oh, cogently argued. Very convincing.

Its garbage. No reference at all to any data, nor any reference to the "rankings" of other teams as a means of comparison (this is purposely left out year after year).

Simply an indiscriminate number thrown up on a message board on a yearly basis.

Outside of the QB position we KNOW that we had a very generous year in the injury department.

But forget all of that and just go by a random number with zero reference points, right? There was no "analysis" at all shared with this #,...yet,...that's what the title of the thread says it will include. Hence, my opinion is it's once again garbage.

The randomness that American football includes tells you that you can't numerically adjust for games lost due to injuries,...lol. Yardage? We can adjust for that in football stats, but games? C'mon. By definition, it makes no sense to begin with.

With Purdy coming in it should really highlight us 1st in AGW (Adjusted Games Won) due to injury. You think this random ranking picks up on that? Of course not.

And if you are looking for convincing arguments against such propaganda,....well...they've been made consistently throughout this thread. See NY's post above.

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by NCommand:
New, complete data for 2022 is in and the original post updated. Very surprising. I legit thought this was our healthiest year by far esp. compared to all teams. I figured no worse than 16th which would be a massive improvement for us. Nope. I guess we're just numb to this:

Historical AGL Ranks: Lower = Healthiest
2008 - 6th
2009 - 23rd
2010 - 4th
2011 - 8th (NFCCG)
2012 - 1st (Superbowl)
2013 - 23rd (NFCCG)
2014 - 26th
2015 - 26th
2016 - 24th
2017 - 23rd
2018 - 29th
2019 - 27th (Superbowl)
2020 - 32nd
2021 - 29th (NFCCG)
2022 - 24th (NFCCG)

Garbage

Oh, cogently argued. Very convincing.

LMAO. I can only imagine the vitriol and quality of that response.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by English:
Oh, cogently argued. Very convincing.

Its garbage. No reference at all to any data, nor any reference to the "rankings" of other teams as a means of comparison (this is purposely left out year after year).

Simply an indiscriminate number thrown up on a message board on a yearly basis.

Outside of the QB position we KNOW that we had a very generous year in the injury department.

But forget all of that and just go by a random number with zero reference points, right? There was no "analysis" at all shared with this #,...yet,...that's what the title of the thread says it will include. Hence, my opinion is it's once again garbage.

The randomness that American football includes tells you that you can't adjust for games lost due to injuries,...lol. Yardage? We can adjust for that in football stats, but games? C'mon. By definition, it makes no sense to begin with.

With Purdy coming in it should really highlight us 1st in AGW (Adjusted Games Won) due to injury. You think this random ranking picks up on that? Of course not.

And if you are looking for convincing arguments against such propaganda,....well...they've been made consistently throughout this thread. See NY's post above.

Well, that is a better response than your previous one.

Let me put in another random. The level of players affected by injury. No one minds if the 4th string cornerback goes down for a few weeks, as long as the others stay strong. But, to lift an example from last year, when you lose your 1st string qb, your 2nd string qb, your 3rd string qb one after the other and end up, in the playoffs with, in effect, no quarterbacks left at all, because a quarterback who can't throw isn't a quarterback, then there are serious issues.

So my point in that paragraph is that there are a great many facets to this and of course not all of them are featured. If you don't cover every single possible facet of an argument or discussion, does that make the rest of the thesis garbage? No. It simply means that not every aspect is covered. In most areas it is called an overview. If there is a fundamental aspect that is missing then of course the thesis should be challenged or failing which, presented with an antithesis. And what comes out of that is obviously a synthesis, when others weigh the two up and take the best from both.

Some sports like baseball and cricket lend themselves to statistical analysis. Others, not so much. But there remains a desire to try to explain occurrences such as the level of injuries. By rule of the eye, I would say that we have suffered very badly from injuries over the last decade or so. Others wish to dig deeper and put figures to it. If you don't agree with the theory - that we have suffered relatively very badly with injuries- you are entirely welcome to put together an argument as to how we haven't, which hopefully will explain why the rest of us think we have. If you don't agree with the format of the argument and believe that other factors ought to be taken into account, then by all means present a case with the extra information incorporated. If you just don't agree with the whole thing, I suggest you don't come in to the thread. There are plenty of other threads.

And if you feel you have exhausted your case and made your arguments and others still persist with theirs, then you haven't convinced them, which is so often the case, and clearly you won't change their minds on this matter.

So move on.